1_ totally unfair map and unbalanced for any numbers of players on it2_ if you start on the europe mainland you're screwed since you have to kill 6's to take a region ( spoil)3_ if you start in america you have only 1's to kill

just wondering why this map is out of beta ?

If you are playing with spoils it is best to start with a European mainland because you can bombard for cards like in feudal. Sometimes you won't get a card on your 1st or 2nd turn, but by your 3rd you will be able to get one on every turn.

I fell in love with this map the first time I played it. I just wish there was also a full world map based on New World. I play this map a lot. What's interesting is how quickly everything can change in a game. That just makes it more challenging and a testing of your skill level. Don't blame the map.

1) Do you only capture the new world to win the game? In other words, I assume that the Old world doesnt matter for victory conditions.

2) If you do need to take over the Old World too - then how would Indians every conquer the whole map?

3) For game play, it seems that the Europeans have a fairly large advantage. +3 for landing zone, ability to bombard, attack by sea and a much more compact footprint. Did you really find Indians winning as often?

1) Do you only capture the new world to win the game? In other words, I assume that the Old world doesnt matter for victory conditions.

2) If you do need to take over the Old World too - then how would Indians every conquer the whole map?

3) For game play, it seems that the Europeans have a fairly large advantage. +3 for landing zone, ability to bombard, attack by sea and a much more compact footprint. Did you really find Indians winning as often?

ad 1) the map has NO victory condition. SO you need to take it all away from your opponants before you win.

ad 2) see one

ad 3) Europeans HAVE a slight advantage over indians, depending on the setting. with adjecent the indians have the advantage.. With escalating 8 player the europeans have the advantage because of bombarding and decent bonussess.Indians win ofter though. You can after all cross over into the homelands on europa..

rousseau72 wrote:3) For game play, it seems that the Europeans have a fairly large advantage. +3 for landing zone, ability to bombard, attack by sea and a much more compact footprint. Did you really find Indians winning as often?

I wouldn't recommend wasting the time viewing all the games and determining where everyone started and who won unless you really have lots of free time and don't believe me but the natives actually win slightly more often. Very slightly, like 1-2% the last time I ran through everything. I don't plan to again.

If you run each start position individually things get a bit more interesting but there isn't enough data for me to trust it because of all the different game type options. Regardless when I ran through things it seemed to me that Mapuche may be too good, which is historically amusing as the Mapuche were able to fight off the Spanish for over 300 years and even though diplomatically defeated the people persisted on their own terms even to this day. Not bad for people most of the CC players have never heard of and ask questions about when they first play but I've gone way off topic, if you have time look the Mapuche up, they are total bad asses.

Anyway, the Mapuche imbalance, if I bother to prove it is real and not just something I perceive, could be fixed by somehow blocking Mapuche 9 from Southern Atlantic Port, with a mountain graphic or something but I don't really want to as it would go against my original design goals. Design Goal 3 actually.

I'm not sure I ever really spelled those out publicly, so I think I will now, because this is a forum and I'm bored.

Original Design Goals

1. 9 starting positions to create the feeling that each game is different and allow for the hush hush increase to 8 players if CC does it (spoiler alert, they did). Even in an 8 player game there are 9 possibilities for where the neutral will be which does change the flow of gameplay.

2. Two different 'races' for a very unique conquest feel. Natives and Europeans.

3. To allow for very interesting Fog/Assassin games and to ensure that no starting position would be completely doomed against any particular target. Thus why the map is so open with the 2 ports. Every start position usually has an acceptable route to any other start position. 10 spaces is the worst if I remember right and that is between Aztec/Dutch. In fact that one is so bad I think we failed design goal 3 but it doesn't seem that bad in game.

4. To come up with a bonus system that encourages a wide variety of team game strategies. A player with a Comanche start could easily give a +1 bonus from its land to a team mate that started with Spain for example. In fact deciding how to distribute most of the native land makes or breaks many team games, which again is historically amusing to me. I also love watching team games where it ends up being all Natives vs all Europeans although they are a bit hard to find.

i believe it IS possible but it has severe side effects (not necessarily bad), for example in 2,3 and 4 player games, players will always start with the same native/European combination, as you'll need to group those starting regions. 5+ player games will ignore those because there will not be enough starting regions to give everyone a set of 2, i'm not exactly sure how it will handle the distribution in that case, as you might have people end up having 2 starting regions while others will only have 2, which will be really imbalanced.

natty_dread wrote:Yeah, it would be possible for 2-player games if you would only code 2 starting positions, then those positions would be ignored in 3-8 player games.

I think that this isn't possible... its the same as with King Court.

i don't know about the king court issue but i believe 3 starting positions is the minimum. (in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

i think that's actually doable, in 2 player games this will solve the imbalance (most of the map will be neutral and 2 players will randomly start in one of 3 pre-assigned areas) in 3 player games the same 3 area's will be used (may spoil the fun a little in 3 player games because everyone will know which starting locations are in use) and in 4-8 player games the game will be exactly the same as it is now, i believe.

Nope, you can have any amount of starting positions. Although if you only code 1 it will be ignored in all game types.

zimmah wrote:(in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

Starting positions are distributed differently from regular territories, regarding 2-player games. Ie. they are always divided equally, if you have 4 starting positions then each player gets 2 in a 2 player game.

If you have 3 starting positions, then each player gets 1, and the 3rd one is either made neutral or added to the pot with the rest of regular territories and distributed that way, depending on how it's coded (ie. if it's coded as neutral or not).

Nope, you can have any amount of starting positions. Although if you only code 1 it will be ignored in all game types.

zimmah wrote:(in 2 player games 1 will be random and the other 2 will be players)

Starting positions are distributed differently from regular territories, regarding 2-player games. Ie. they are always divided equally, if you have 4 starting positions then each player gets 2 in a 2 player game.

If you have 3 starting positions, then each player gets 1, and the 3rd one is either made neutral or added to the pot with the rest of regular territories and distributed that way, depending on how it's coded (ie. if it's coded as neutral or not).

oh believe i read it somewhere that the minimum was 3, but maybe it was wrong. didn't make much sense to me either.

I just found a similarity with Monster-Map. I have no idea, how he did. But if we follow his logic and use it in New World, where we split the starting position into 2 groups (N- and E-Homelands), each player will have :

In a 2 player game- both players would have 2 N-Homelands each. - both players would have 2 E-Homelands

In a 3 and 4 player game- all players would have 1 N-Homelands each . - all players would have 1 E-Homelands

Well, it could be coded with 4 starting positions, each position holding one native homeland and one european homeland, with one european homeland left over.

In 2-player games, each player would get 2 n. homelands and 2 e. homelands, and one e.homeland would be neutral.In 3-player games, each player would first get 1 n.homeland and 1 e. homeland, then the remaining 1 n.homeland and 2 e.homelands would be divided randomly among the 3 players, so in effect: two of the players would get 2 e.homelands and 1 n.homeland, while one player would get 2 n.homelands and 1 e.homeland.In 4-player games, each player would get 1 n.homeland and 1 e.homeland, and one e.homeland would be neutral.In 5-player games and above, all the homelands would be distributed randomly as they are now (the positions would be ignored).

natty_dread wrote:Well, it could be coded with 4 starting positions, each position holding one native homeland and one european homeland, with one european homeland left over.

In 2-player games, each player would get 2 n. homelands and 2 e. homelands, and one e.homeland would be neutral.In 3-player games, each player would first get 1 n.homeland and 1 e. homeland, then the remaining 1 n.homeland and 2 e.homelands would be divided randomly among the 3 players, so in effect: two of the players would get 2 e.homelands and 1 n.homeland, while one player would get 2 n.homelands and 1 e.homeland.In 4-player games, each player would get 1 n.homeland and 1 e.homeland, and one e.homeland would be neutral.In 5-player games and above, all the homelands would be distributed randomly as they are now (the positions would be ignored).

i think this would be the best solution.

just which european homeland should start neutral then in 2 and 4 player games? i'd say holland.

babinecz wrote:it is a great idea, but i agree that some of your facts are off...i.e. aztec are furhter south than that, "MAPUCHES," are actually a group of indigenous people from paraguay that relocated to southern argentina (patagonia essentially) because of the saramiento racial cleansings, so, not really applicable. i think it would be good if you just had the imperial nations, and include russia as an extra one, because they did have northwestern territories at the presumed point of early to mid sixteenth century i'm believe you are aiming at. just lose all the native empires and stick with six empires starting, and have the respective western territories neutral for the conquering

This one could be cool. Most of the other historical corrections are, as stated, not very good for gameplay.Plus, Russia's always fun.

Thank you for your New World map. I enjoy it a lot.Talking about strategy: How is possible for a player to avoid bombing from Europe to colonies?I will appreciate your answer.Regards... and congratulations for the map.